It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I'm sorry, but I am quite sick of the government getting this seriously into our lives.
In America at least, it should be up to the place to decide, and if they lose business because of it and shut down til there are not more, well that's what the market wanted.
We're capitalists boys, we're TRYING to let the market decide. I guess the Federal Government has forgotten that.
Originally posted by The Teller
John Cleese once said that he was in a restaurant eating a meal when a couple on the next table finished eating and started smoking. He asked them to stop while he ate and they refused. So he went over and farted at their table while they ate dessert. What's the difference indeed, except farts can't killI suppose!
Originally posted by LostSailor
Im a smoker....
I can understand not smoking in working places and other areas like this. But what do people expect when they go to a bar or night club? Actually, bar and night club owners in cities that have this ban are starting to complain about it because they're losing buisness. Also, most of the people that are so for banning smoking in these places, never even go to them. This is just taking the whole "lung-hugging" way to far.
I'm almost seeing the anti-smoking thing in America as the prohibition of the new age. Pretty soon I'll be a criminal just for having a smoke. What the hell is goin on?
You have the right to walk away from me when I light up a smoke. Maybe you should go outside when I have a cigarette.
Second hand smoke.... you have more chance of getting a brain tumor from your cell phone or cancer from drinking tap water. Seriously
Originally posted by LostSailor
Shoot I can do one better than that even... Automobiles should be banned. Cars kill more people then smoking and drinking every year!!!
DOWN WITH THE AUTOMOBILE!!!
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
You can choose not to eat at McDonalds (which obesity is almost as bad as smoking) which is known to have extremely bad food for your body, and WILL contribute to health problems.
Case in point. Many Denny's in my area (a local favorite for the after bar scene, goths, misunderstood poets, etc) went non-smoking. This was bad for the crowd that packed them in the evenings and early morning.
They are still packed and people smoke outside or not at all.
Sounds scary...
Originally posted by JSaulKane
According to ash.org.uk (published in 1999), smokers pay about �10.5 billion in VAT and duty in the UK, but according to NHS figures, only �1.7 billion is spent on tobacco related diseases.
Originally posted by Journey
I just quit smoking, about 2 months ago- and now I feel as if they ought to baned totally, not just in public places. 26 years of addiction!
Originally posted by Majic
Then, when Smokey saunters up to the pile of dry brush, oil-soaked rags and dead logs you�re sitting on and asks �Mind if I smoke?�, you can just whip out your bag, hold it in his face, say �Mind if I shake?�, then start shaking flour all over him while making comments like, �Mmmm! There�s nothing like that smoooooth Asbestos� flavor!�
Important Note: After 9/11, some people might get the wrong idea if you sprinkle a fine, white powder all over them. Obviously, it would be foolish to overlook how sensitive and potentially volatile such a misunderstanding would be, so in addition to commenting on the quality and flavor of the Asbestos you are shaking, be sure to occasionally yell, �Don�t worry! This isn�t anthrax, honest! Nope, it�s definitely not anthrax, so don�t go thinking it is, because you would be really, really wrong!� Doing this will allay the fears of even the most skittish and suspicious smoker, security guard or law enforcement official.
Originally posted by dawnstar
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If the studies on global warming doesn't link global warming to our use of fossil fuel, then I believe the studies on shs are even weaker.
And, well, I really do doubt the intentions of those studies, especially when the lawyers that all the legal battles very quickly went on to battle the junk food resturants and such.
And, well, have you looked at price of those cigarette cessation aids that are sold....boy, some big corporations are really cashing in on this one aren't they?
It's a very Big Business!!
And, well, if you trace the money, you will probably find that the researchers are funded by people are are cashing in...
-----------------------------
Majic, I just used the same argument that you did to refute global warming. If the results of that test isn't credible to you, why should the studies on second hand smoke? How in the world can anyone take in all the variables that might cause a medical problem....chemicals at home, chemicals at the workplace, chemicals added to their environment around their home, in their food, in their water.....and walk away saying that second hand smoke killed anyone? God, Kodak in Rochester increases the risk of those living closeby for pancreatic cancer...guess what...all those people are more prone to diabetes...so, are how feasable is it that the weeklly big macs and fries that they consumed really caused the problem.
Is this a pick your own poison thing or what?
If you are going to accept one, you should at least accept the other, since the integrety of the science is about equal.
Instead of scapegoating.
Originally posted by LostSailor
Second hand smoke.... you have more chance of getting a brain tumor from your cell phone or cancer from drinking tap water. Seriously
Originally posted by theshadowknows
I want to start off this reply by saying...THIS IS BS!
Im a smoker. I've heard about the smoke bans in NYC and the 8 dollars a pack price. I think if they keep making these utterly ignorant laws on smoking, the governments going to have some riots on their hands.
I mean, c'mon...do people not see how stupid a ban on smoking is in a freakin bar! A pub is the kind of place to sit back, forget your troubles, and have a drink and a smoke. If they take this away from us, theres gonna be trouble.
-TSK
John Cleese once said that he was in a restaurant eating a meal when a couple on the next table finished eating and started smoking. He asked them to stop while he ate and they refused. So he went over and farted at their table while they ate dessert. What's the difference indeed, except farts can't killI suppose!
Yes well that�s utterly stupid just like john cleese. Maybe he should have gone to a non-smoking restaurant.
Originally posted by The Teller
A new and growing argument here in the UK by the anti Ban brigade is that it will only make people smoke more at home, make people stay at home more than go out to bars so children of smokers will have a greater chance of developing secondary smoke related diseases. WOOOH. So the same people who say you cannot ban smoking in the public arena because there is no proof of passive smoking cancer and related diseases are the same people who say if you do ban it more children will get cancer and secondary smoke diseases because smokers will stay at home. Great Logic Again.
[edit on 12-11-2004 by The Teller]
Originally posted by kode
I think there would be clubs and pubs that would be non-smoking where all the non-smokers can go that�s fine, there is no reason why this cannot be done.
Originally posted by dollmonster
Go ahead people, give the government permisson to strip away yet another freedom from the people.
Originally posted by The Teller
Originally posted by dollmonster
Go ahead people, give the government permisson to strip away yet another freedom from the people.
So wexactly WHAT is the difference between governments stripping a person's freedom and a government denying another person's freedom?
Originally posted by The Teller
Because it is a logistical nightmare, that is why. First you need ALL staff to be smokers and ALL patrons to be smokers.
Originally posted by The Teller
So a non smoking experienced barman goes for the job, is declined the employment, he takes the firm to an industrial tribunal and wins on the grounds of non employment through discrimination.
Originally posted by The Teller
Also a friend has a dinner, three of the nine guests don't smoke, but as they have been invited by the host to the restaurant by a smoker it is unseemly to protest about him and all the others smoking.
Originally posted by The Teller
Why should the person who has become a victim of the Multi Billion dollar tobacco corporations, a heath hazard to themselves and those around them have ALL the rights? That is the situation now as it stands.
Originally posted by The Teller
If they ban smoking they are oppressing smokers rights, if they don't they are oppressing non-smokers rights. So surley it is sensible in theses situations to address the rights of the victims, and potential victims above those whoe cause the problems by smoking.
Originally posted by kode
not at all we are not as silly as them hysterical anti smokers.
Originally posted by The Teller
So a non smoking experienced barman goes for the job, is declined the employment, he takes the firm to an industrial tribunal and wins on the grounds of non employment through discrimination.
Originally posted by kodeNo he doesn�t because he is told that it is a smoking establishment. If he doesn�t want to work in a smoking establishment then he has no need to apply. Instead he can apply to work in a non-smoking establishment.
Originally posted by The Teller
Why should the person who has become a victim of the Multi Billion dollar tobacco corporations, a heath hazard to themselves and those around them have ALL the rights? That is the situation now as it stands.
People have been smoking since the dawn of time you know. It�s not just a moden day phenomenon.